User talk:Aido2002
Archives *Archives, page 1 Expansion Please do not change this template anymore i have elaborated why it is necessery haven't I? Both of those templates exist on the wikipedia and are used as I have previpously explained. None of them is redundant. Whisperer 15:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC) Admin Hi Aido. Since there were no objections on my talk page, I have made you an admin. Good luck with your new role on the wiki. Angela talk 10:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC) :Congrats J Andres 11:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC) :Congratulations welcome to the club :) Whisperer 13:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Copyrighted No that is not possible here on our wikia, and the fact is if we were about to delete each image because none of them has proper copyrighted status. That's why we have to allow to the people to try to find the best way of licence. In the end of this weak i'll make templates for all different licences. And if you would check images there are many which are used in fact and are copyrighted. Whisperer 12:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC) :A yes i almost forgotten do not delete images which are not used by anything as they might be in future and so on it is not important that images are used by something or that we need it. It is important that we are making collection of knowlegde on this wikia and we need each portion of material involved to Cyber Nations. Front Page "online" box I fixed the box to make it work. The problem was that you misused the wiki formatting... you left off the "|}" end table tag. This message applies to you and everyone else here... use proper syntax! If you want it to look good, you have to make sure the code is clean! -- Alphacow 15:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC) front page additions I would post this on the front page itself, but I don't think anyone reads the talk there, and you are the only person really working on the page now. I think it's important to try to keep the number of items on the front page to as few as necessary. I personally think that the "create new page" thing and the "create a new account" thing are unnecessary; the first since we have (had) a link to welcome newbies inthe Important Info box, and the second since it's already located on the page. I removed the search box from the main page code for exactly that reason also; there is enough stuff there as is, and the search is prominently displayed on the side of every single page. No need to replicate what's already there. Additionally, the "CN is: online" thing is, IMHO, also unnecessary, since you really can only get to this page from the CN webpage (I don't think anyone's going to bookmark this site), and if it's down, people will be in the forums, not here. Just some ideas... if you want to move this somewhere else to have the discussion, feel free to just copy and paste it... just let me know. -- Alphacow 04:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC) :I moved this discussion to the Village pump so that others can contribute. -- Alphacow 18:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC) New skin I like the fact that that multicolored cybernations logo is gone, that was ugly. However i'm finding the "navigation" "search" "toolbox" etc fonts on the left of the screen a little thin and hard to read against the black title bars. Also the search box is blue which makes it impossible to see what is being typed into it. over all though I like the color layout Solidusspriggan Bureaucrat I've made you a bureaucrat here, though the suggestion that comments can only be added for two days seems far too short. Angela talk 06:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC) :Would you like to use those powers? Mason11987 14:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Since you're an active admin Could you head done over here and help me out with a few tasks needed to make the Forum run a little more smoothly? Thanks. Mason11987 04:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Comments I'll be responding to your messages on my talk page, on my talk page if you could put it on your watchlist or something that'd be great. Mason11987 20:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC) /b/ Hello, I would like to question the locking of the "/b/" article as a redirect to \b\, as, being a member of said alliance, I feel the need to explain that inversing the slashes takes away from the meaning of the article as a whole, in addition, the software flaw is minor and only result in a "<" symbol being displayed above the intro paragraph. I request an exception is made for the /b/ article as the slashes cannot be considered interchangeable per the tradition and culture of the website we originate from. /b/ Why are you locking articles for no reason? If you were trying to explain the problem with subpages (which may or not make a subpage necessary, you should have used a talk page to explain it as is the wiki way. I understand you want pages to look better, but before the move there was just a stray "<" at the top of the article, with no other problems. Now there is a page (the one of the subject) that doesn't redirect because for some reason you put a template above the redirect (which makes the redirect worthless as I'm sure you know). The protection tool should not be used to overrule discussion just because you have it. It's to protect the articles. Those who know of the flaw and who were writing the article said "The software flaw is MINOR and we cannot afford our name to be reversed." You simply ignored them and then locked them out of the article, without an attempt at actual discussion. I suggest you unlock the article and attempt discussion before you start throwing around your powers. Mason11987 18:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC) :Also, why are you putting down a notice of semi-protection when the article is fully protected? Mason11987 18:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC) :Cybernations:Protection - I'd like to hear your thoughts on this proposed policy, thanks. Mason11987 18:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC) ::I would like to add the fact that the /b/ article, and indeed, the problem remains, since despite the fact /b/ is now a redirect, it is still an article to the website software, and therefore is still affected by the "bug" you mention. This means you're keeping the bug while locking us of the /b/ alliance out of our own article. I request this is undone, a single page with a small bug won't destroy the entire wiki and you aren't truly solving anything by locking us out of the /b/ article. Lolinternets 15:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC) ::: I put my points down on my talk page and once the discussion settles it'll be worked out. I still contend that this is the kind of thing that should be discussed outright before a change and an unnecessary protection is put into place, but hopefully next time. -- Mason11987 (T - - ) 18:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC) When moving content in pages When moving content like how you moved my protected page guidelines, use the "move" tab at the top instead of simply copying and pasting the info and then redirecting. It's faster and realistically in terms of the GNU FDL, it's the only legal way of moving content (to preserve the history that is). Mason11987 00:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC) :Also, doing it this way allows you to easily move talk pages as well, which was left over while you did a manual move. Mason11987 00:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC) Cyber Nations Wiki:Village Pump I have a few sections without any comments and I was wondering if you'd be interested in giving your thoughts, thanks. Mason11987 01:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC) deletion Category:Candidates for speedy deletion - Category:Articles for deletion. Can you comment on or delete these articles/categories/images? Thannks :) Random Insanity Alliance first comment referring to me blanking the rambling part. Just bringing it to your attention. Also...I got this message in CN from someone "The Random Insanity Alliance Wiki. We know its not a forum. Did we give you permission to edited it no. So please dont edit are Wiki." I told them the page isn't theirs, but I'll just pass this up, do (or not do) as you like. -- Mason11987 (T - - ) 01:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC) : This "sounds" contradictory to "Wiki philosophy" but I am of the opinion that the creators of entries which document their own nation, here in this wiki, should be able to consider themselves the owner of that entry. I know I would be really peeved if anyone made substantial changes to ReligiousLibertarian. Now when it comes to entries that are not documentation of a CN nation I agree that we need to apply the Wiki philosophy that "anyone can edit any page". But, let's face it, this is not Wikipedia and the entries here are more for bragging and prestige and even fantasy or "role playing" than they are for documentation of fact. Key Stroke 21:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC) :: I responded to this same comment on my talk page (click the "T"). -- Mason11987 (T - - -CN) 21:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC) :: To quote you: "Anyone can edit any article, that's the idea of a wiki." This Wiki needs to break with that idea. If we don't break with that idea then we are going to see wars in CN over who changed what in the Wiki. There is plenty of work to do outside of changing other peoples entries, focus on that instead. If you really feel the need to go change the entry on someone elses CN Nation or Alliance then just ask them first if you can help. A little polite request first will go a long way to prevent turning this Wiki into a battle-ground. If people fear their entries will be substantially changed they will be reluctant to create them.... and if people feel that they can't "own" their own entries they will not maintain them either. This isn't Wikipedia. Key Stroke 21:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC) ::: If people have a problem with a change they can undo it, then discuss it. Most actions that have been performed were taken perfectly fine (I could actually link you to several "thank you's" I received for doing cleanup tasks on a few pages). If they had reverted my change and said "see talk page" they could have explained why they didn't want that change and we could have progressed from there. But allowing people do pretty much put whatever they want on a page that will inevitably be linked to from many locations isn't exactly reasonable. Random change with no point is reverted without explanation, vandalism can be reverted without explanation. If you don't like a change I made, revert it, I may ask why you did later if you don't put an explanation though, but discussion is the best thing. This isn't wikipedia, but without the couple general "clean up" tasks that I've done then about 200 or so pages wouldn't have been as accessible as they are now. Just because one group wanted to put their random "can we say 'cocks'" posts on the article doesn't negate the fact that allowing open editing is a good thing. -- Mason11987 (T - - -CN) 21:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC) I also left a lengthy response on Mason's tlak page to this comment. Please see my comment there. J Andres 21:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC) We will continue this on Cyber Nations Wiki:Disc1 You have taken off the Zeep's story of the Random Isanity Alliance. I am requesting you allow my alliance to put it back. That part of the RIA wiki has been there for months. I am sure you have seen it before and done nothing to it. That is unfair you are editing the RIA page without asking us. Also to Mason11987 you never asked or discussed with the RIA people if you could change the RIA's Wiki. You are going against your own words. You are acting like you own the place when you just JOINED! Please do not come to a different wiki join and then think you own the place. -Crazyisraelie eh... eh. -- Mason11987 (T - - ) 20:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Blocking needed Category:Vandal to be banned a set of users who vandalized Ivan Moldavi with racial slurs. I suggest banning them, one of them call it a /b/ raid, whether it really is or not we don't know. I suggest semi-protecting it. -- Mason11987 (T - - ) 07:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC) :75.126.48.147 for edits to NPO. -- Mason11987 (T - - -CN) 09:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC) The user listed above and 75.126.48.146 (very, very similar) have been banned recently. J Andres 13:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Bias The wiki is about people talking about RP nations, there is going to be Bias, I don't see why it's bad. If the "facts" they refer to (like they launched a nuke at Nation B) are true, then I don't think it matters if they say there nation is "glorious and proud". The articles should be written by the nations themselves as long as the article is actually about the nation I think it's fine. -- Mason11987 (T - - -CN) 03:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC) deletions You deleted Currently unnamed conflict? and CCC Flag just a couple of hours after they were created? Why? If a page isn't obvious vandalism, I think you need to leave messages on talk pages that you'd like to know what the page is about or at least tell them why you deleted it. They both have potential to be articles if given more then 4 hours before deleting. -- Mason11987 (T - - -CN) 03:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC) :I support the deletion of Unnamed Conflict You should know what to name the war by the time you bring it here. There was nothing on the page at the time and it would have only been moved to somewhere else later. It seemed pointless. J Andres 04:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC) ::There was a talk page (for that) that I had to find the RC of and reconnect it to a possible future article. It is quite easy to move an article, regular users can even do it. I can assure you there are PLENTY of things that could use admin powers more then deleting articles because they will eventually need to be moved. Judging things that seem pointless when they have had but a few hours to develop (and even had an active talk page thinking about the article) seems jumping the gun. -- Mason11987 (T - - -CN) 04:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC) ::I don't think they should have made the page, without putting anyhting on it. Otherwise it is no different than the many Coming soon pages that we have. People come and set it up, then run away. I was going to give it 24 before I deleted. Blank pages shouldn't exist. J Andres 12:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC) :::Well that's why I suggested leaving a note somewhere if you're going to do it, there was an active talk page, simply saying "deleted page, only put up articles when there is content for them" would have seemed much better, as it is, someone made an article who didn't know how things work here and it was deleted, they may not even be able to tell it was deleted, it just doesn't exist anymore. Either putting up an afd tag or leaving a note after deletion doesn't seemi like too much trouble. -- Mason11987 (T - - -CN) 19:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC) That explains a lot In response to "Ahem... I have done a lot here"... It explains the lack of perspective. This Wiki exists to serve the game. The game does not exist to serve the Wiki. Applying concepts to this Wiki that have been applied to Wikipedia does not work for that reason. Wikipedia exists for it's own independent purpose (to catalog the knowledge of the world). This Wiki exists simply because it is the easiest way for owners of CN nations to document their nations (and alliances). Think of it this way: If CyberNations (the game) had infinite resources and flexibility in-game to document the nations, alliances, pacts, wars, and other things and events surrounding the game then no one would question that the 'ruler' (owner) of the nation had sole right to edit and change the content of that nation. But instead of trying to reinvent the wheel the Admin of CN threw up a Wiki to allow 'rulers' of nations (and by extension alliances, etc.) to create their own documentation. Right from the start the intent was for creators of articles (here) to own their articles. It is ass-backwards for a johnny-come-lately to start applying the idea that "anyone can edit anything". That is because one of the fundamental concepts of the game is "ownership". 'Rulers' of nations have total control over their nations because of that absolute ownership. By extension Alliances have total control over themselves because the member nations cede limited ownership rights over to the alliance to which they belong. As 'rulers' own the information about their nation in-game so must they have ownership rights over the information about their nation in this Wiki because this Wiki was (and still is) just an extension of the game. The same goes for alliances by extension. Conclusion: Apply the concept of "anyone can edit anything" to those things that only pertain to the Wiki. Those things that are created to document aspects of the game (such as nations, alliances, pacts, wars, etc.) consider those entries to belong (owned by) the creator of that entry. Key Stroke 14:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC) :In just about every case, nation entries are not touched except by their "owner," except for the case of grammar or spelling if we catch it. Alliances also in most cases fall into the same thing. However, there has to be some sort of guidelines to follow. Most nations use the template and right about their history. Most alliances include their charter and whatnot. The only time that an alliance will get edited, such as in teh RIA case, is when "bragging" or nonsense is taking place. In small amounts this can be tolerated. Nations do belong to their owners. Maintaining these few guidelines leaves a little sense of professionalism. The mission of this wiki is to document the history of the game that is Cyber Nations. We do this by providing articles on as many nations as possible, because this game is made up of nations, not alliances. Then these nations may create other articles to help better tell their story, for example alliance or individual pages. Next time you go to add your comment, read what it says right below the box. "You do not own any contributions or articles, and anyone may edit any unprotected page." Plain and simple. We didn't create these rules. The wiki is a collection of information. Information is informative, even if only slightly. If something is not informative, then it doesn't belong here. J Andres 16:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC) ::One of two things (or both) will happen if you insist on this ideal: #People will create their initial entry and then get frustrated by the lack of ownership they have on that entry and the entries will no longer be kept up-to-date. It will be percieved that the admins or beuraucrats (or whatever title and power you have been granted) "own" the entries as you take it upon yourself to make corrections without first asking permission. If someone insists on pressing their creator rights and figure out how to revert the page that will just result in an edit war with an admin where the initial creator will lose. Once a creator loses this situation (or realizes that they will lose before trying to revert the entry) then they will abandon the entry as their ownership has been stolen from them. #Edit wars between the initial creators of an entry and an admin will turn the Wiki into a battleground. User:Key Stroke :::Like I said, I have never made any major edits to a nation page that I didn't control except for formating etc. There have been relatively few incidents. However, if we follow your belief system then lets take a look at United Cyber Nations. One of their own members vandalized their page according to our standards. By making fun of their later. It is vandalism plain and simple. I reverted it and banned him. He responded by attacking my nation. Who is right in this sense? The vandal who owns a piece of the article? No. J Andres 20:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC) :::: I'll let it be known now that if I make an edit to try to improve an article about a nation or an alliance and it is not wanted, then revert it, and leave a note on the talk page and it'll be talked out. All but a very very small amount of the admin related edits (and mine also, although my edits aren't "admin") haven't resulted in edit wars. Reverts are very easy to do, and reverting an admin for making an edit to an article is not and should not be a punishment. We are simply people who are working to improve the wiki and of course we make mistakes. But if I stop by later and see my edit was undone I think it'd be courteous to just leave a mention of why it was undone. It's not only impossible but also not useful to allow editing only by the creator of an article. -- Mason11987 (T - - -CN) 21:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Cyber Nations Wiki:Requests for Adminship votes are up for 5 days. Thanks. -- Mason11987 (T - - -CN) 21:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC) New Pacific Order I reverted you here. My reason is in the edit summary. Style does not trump information. By removing that in order to meet "style" you are changing their charter. By editing it to not use "we" you are changing their charter. That information is presented as it exists and should not be changed at all by anyone unless their alliance changes it themselves. -- Mason11987 (T - - -CN) 22:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)